8 ms·

Von der Leyen uses Orbán defeat to push for end of veto in EU foreign policy

raxxorraxor 6mo ago
The EU has a problem with a lack of legitimisation of the whole political construct and other power players know about this weakness. The degree of freedom in political decision is strongly inhibited. This wouldn't solve any problems either, on the contrary. Personally I don't feel like a EU citizen. It is like being a citizen of a bureaucratic monster that serves no specific function. That tries to justify its existence not through being a guardian of common values, but a bureaucracy of not-quite-experts. I genuinely wonder about people that feel patriotic about the EU. I have nothing against them, I just don't want to share the same house. Orban was someone to point the finger to for what feels like decades. To see this result and extract a mission to extend EU powers is delusional in my opinion.
- torginus 6mo ago
  I think the EU is just a bunch of countries in a trenchcoat. The main reason for this is the lack of mobility between countries. Each country has its own language, and more importantly social security, benefits, taxes, and the properties are much more expensive compared to salaries than pretty much anywhere in the world. So either you're a long term renter with locked in low rates, or own an apt, so you have very little incentive to move. People who do move usually come from a poorer part to a richer part, and once in their lives, or they move to a warmer country like Spain when they retire.
- ahartmetz 6mo ago
  There could also hardly be a worse representative than von der Leyen. She is the perfect example of an incredibly unpopular and even incapable (she did terribly as the German minister of defense) but cunning career politician who SOMEHOW made it to a top position in the EU.
- mhitza 6mo ago
  What EU country are you from? For me there where mostly upsides of being in the EU. Free travel, better consumer legislation, more invidual rights and protections, etc.
- mfuzzey 6mo ago
  There are a lot of upsides to being in the EU. It's so much easier to move aroud, both for short term travel and longer term too. The common currency (at least in most countries) really helps as do things like no roaming charges. If you decide you want to go and look for a job in another country you just do it, no visa hassle or asking permissions. I was born in the UK and moved to France (long before Brexit thank goodness) it would have been much harder without the EU. I certainly consider myself a EU citizen, more than British or French (I now have both nationalities). Of course it's not perfect but getting rid of individual coutry vetoes would help with a lot of things in the wider geopolicital sphere - and has already been done in many domains)
  - raxxorraxor 6mo ago
    Moving around easily and not having to show your passport is often an argument for the advantages. In reality this is more or less completely insignificant, even if you do travel a lot. Some bureaucratic barriers changing nationalities aren't relevant in contrast to what the EU brings to the table. Meanwhile, while people can vote for an inhibited parliament, it is far too removed from the average citizen that neither knows the people they are voting for, nor can they probably understand them. VdL would have never been successful if people understood what she was saying or had said in the past. It is a democratic circus and a clear symptom.
nickysielicki 6mo ago
> Orbán, the EU’s most autocratic leader […] lost by a decisive margin in Sunday’s vote, amid the highest turnout in Hungary’s democratic history. What a ridiculous sentence. He’s an autocrat, but he’s out of power after losing a democratic election. Which is it? Words have meaning.
- watwut 6mo ago
  It was election, but Hungarian democracy is severely lacking and barely a democracy. A miracle happened, because too many people were too pissed at Orban. That does not make the country non autocratic, it means miracle happened and now new guys has all that power.
  - redeeman 6mo ago
    haha, a miracle happened, people voted someone out, but its NOT a democracy. why is it so needed to try paint it as not a democracy when it has CLEARLY proven that it is such
    - watwut 6mo ago
      Mostly because I know more about Hungarian system then you. It is was not clearly proven as such. The system is still heavily favoring one party. Just because you can flip who is on top of all stars align and 80% of voters come in mostly does not make it functional democracy worth the name. Orban was able to stay in power so long, because anything less then that would mean he gets all that power again. Opposition media and parties in the country were destroyed long time ago. Judiciary is routinely abused. Simple as that. Yes, it was pro-democracy, anti-Russia, pro-EU vote. That does not mean Hungary changed over time. It means it has one last chance at reform. If it does not reform, there will be no way to flip it in elections the next time. And yes, American conservative fans of Orban know all of that - Rubio, Vance, Rod Dreher, Peterson. They loved and admired the arrangement and want to emulate it.
      - redeeman 6mo ago
watwut 6mo ago
It is actually a good idea.
- barbazoo 6mo ago
  I see no path where this would be a good idea unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same. If Hungary is a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy then either they have to focus their attention on improving living conditions there so people realize the value of their alliance (if that's the purpose, improving living conditions) or realize that Hungary isn't a good fit for this type of alliance and kick it out. Removing veto power probably makes it more likely that the next Orban pulls them out of the EU entirely which might not be in the interest of the alliance.
  - watwut 6mo ago
    First, Hungary is not a "a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy". They are just not fully democratic country anymore, full stop. The system there did not changed, judiciary, media and the rest of the country are as much in the hands of a leader and easy to be abused as yesterday. The person on top of it changed. He did promised reforms, it remains to be seen whether they happen or not. But second, regardless of Hungary, anyone can veto is dysfunctional system. > unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same. Everyone has veto is literally a system where everyone must think the same, else nothing will happen. > Removing veto power probably makes it more likely that the next Orban pulls them out of the EU entirely which might not be in the interest of the alliance. That would be bad for Hungary, but good for the rest of Europe. Hungary presence in EU was damaging to EU for years now.
    - redeeman 6mo ago
      > Everyone has veto is literally a system where everyone must think the same, else nothing will happen. thats not true, it just means that everone must not be extremely opposed to something for it to happen.
      - 6mo ago
Georgelemental 6mo ago
[dead]
solaarphunk 6mo ago
Brussels appears to be extremely tone deaf to the basic needs of ordinary people, and taking further steps in a direction to centralize power is just going to push more people to the far right. For example, the fact that right-wing governments in central and eastern Europe are protecting their borders, represents a very popular perspective, apparently shared by very few in the EU governing body. Consolidating power at a moment when many EU policies are clearly unpopular seems like it will have unintended consequences.
- snowpid 6mo ago
  " ... apparently shared by very few in the EU governing body." Source? Given Frontex' action I doubt it.
- sunshine-o 6mo ago
  It is really make or break for the EU "regime". This is because the EU never had a clear goal and so the project cannot be finished if it was to survive. First it was about harmonizing law and standards, then the Euro and stabilizing and rebuilding the eastern Europe. All those things were good ideas and great successes, but now what? This is why they really wanted to absorb Turkey 20 years ago, and now Ukraine, Brussels needs a new project so it can justify it's existence and expansion. So it becomes a devouring mother who keep their 40 years old kids at home and try to find new one to adopt. The EU is also unfortunately a very pre-Internet and pre-globalization project. Just put yourself in the shoes of the previous generations who had to imagine a system to have Germany, Portugal and Greece adopt standards to be able to work efficiently together? This is a very hard problem in 1970 or 1980. Today if Greta from Hamburg want to get in business with Portugal she search on Google, send an email, go on a Zoom meeting with real time translation and can pay with a stablecoin. If she need to figure out some laws in Portugal she can ask ChatGPT. This was science fiction 50 years ago. That is not even necessary, she can go on aliexpress and do business in China instantly. China is not part of the EU but it seems we are very interconnected and do a lot of business with China anyway. And your shipment from China is protected by the Seventh fleet, not the EU. Protecting the borders or raising an army? those are not things a bureaucracy know how to do or can do... it was not designed for this. So yes the EU is trying to find a new frontiers: physical, ideological or digital. This is why in recent year it has been a lot about regulating the Internet, social media, porn, crypto, chat, AI, etc. But regulating a technology when the cat is already out of the bag is really hard so they will have to get China level authoritarian to show some results.
dh2022 6mo ago
Interesting situation. EU is asking countries to give up their right to veto foreign policy decisions. Any country can veto this proposal. Hmmm, what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power?
- euroderf 6mo ago
  Then you would have the United States Senate.
- fifilura 6mo ago
  > what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power? Was that a rhetoric question? Of course it is a leap of faith. But the idea is that it will make the union as a whole stronger, and then maybe even giving up your veto right would make it worthwhile.
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago
  > EU is asking countries to give up their right to veto foreign policy decisions. Any country can veto this proposal. Hopefully it well be vetoed by more than one. There is no realistic alternative to veto in the situation the EU is in. It could be an option later on, they have to be patient, now is the worst time to move towards coercive powers. Especially under such a nonsensical pretext: >> Von der Leyen uses Orbán defeat to push for end of veto in EU foreign policy Orban was defeated, democracy worked, veto power is no longer under the threat of abuse, if it ever was. A lot of other issues could be improved in the EU, do that instead of fixing what's not broken.
  - illiac786 6mo ago
    Some think this is one of the major broken thing in the EU, the inability to handle quickly, speak with one voice. Veto right is actually very undemocratic: A minuscule minority overrules the vast majority. but it was the only way to convince countries to form the EU. And to be fair, it’s a way of protecting minorities. > There is no realistic alternative to veto in the situation the EU is in. Many many people disagree on this. There is no alternative to supporting Ukraine as much as possible. Very uncomfortable truth, shitty situation, and unfortunately, delusion/denial is a very common (and very relatable) human reaction to such situations.
iammjm 6mo ago
To all against a priori against this, I encourage you to read up on the history and consequences of "liberum veto"
- busterarm 6mo ago
  This is very short term thinking. The EU will not survive losing the veto. And it'll happen in under a decade.
  - mhitza 6mo ago
    I wouldn't put a date in predictions, but wuthout right to veto they're playing harder into the nationalistic propaganda of "Brussel forces us"
    - busterarm 6mo ago
      https://michalovadek.github.io/eu-veto-tracker/ https://michalovadek.github.io/eu-veto-tracker/. It's not just the nationalistic usual suspects that use their veto power. This rightly points out that many issues that are known will have their veto used don't even get brought up. Removal of the veto will stop this and I expect lightning rod topics and disputes to occur much more frequently. Same with the free-riding comment. Removing the veto will expose some nations "true colors" in ways that most do not anticipate. It's not all sunshine and rainbows of agreement among the EU member states.
      - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
        > many issues that are known will have their veto used don't even get brought up. It's quite disingenuous to blame the veto power for lack of discussion on important issues, if anything it's an argument in favor of the veto, because the only reason to avoid discussion when you lack coercive power is weak arguments... and there's no need to waste time with such nonsense. > Removing the veto will expose some nations "true colors" in ways that most do not anticipate. Another slippery argument - there is absolutely no reason to hide the "true colors" of veto-capable members you disagree with, actually the opposite is true, one will have to come up with more, more convincing and true-color-exposing arguments in order to apply pressure via the electorate of the true colors. > It's not all sunshine and rainbows of agreement among the EU member states. No it's not, there are shady forces who dream about coercion for the worse.
iknownothow 6mo ago
Out of curiosity, can there not be something like a two party or N party veto? i.e. requiring a minimum of two or N parties to work together to veto? The choice between just a single party having a veto power vs no party with veto powers seems a little black and white to me. Happy to be enlightened on the matter.
- snowpid 6mo ago
  An N party veto is called a quorum. So if you need 75 % of all countries, it is a 7 nation veto.
- euroderf 6mo ago
  Two would be toxic. Malta and Cyprus, or whatever. Three might be viable.
- illiac786 6mo ago
  Yes, a 2/3 quorum m quorum in critical topics. Same as a lot of countries do for things like changing the constitution.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
sunshine-o 6mo ago
I remember clearly that 20 years ago when they were trying to pass their constitution they were saying: "do not worry we can transfer all power to the EU because any country could always veto it so it is safe"
- illiac786 6mo ago
  Yep, only way to get them on board. There wouldn’t be any EU if they hadn’t said this. They can leave though. UK would advise against it, I believe.
cromka 6mo ago
As a Pole, I am torn. It would help fight Russian advances for sure, but it would also mean appeasing Israel. Spain's fierce stance against genocide in Palestine would be nearly impossible in a collective EU foreign policy.
- illiac786 6mo ago
  I might have missed something: Why is fighting Russia equivalent to supporting Israel? Honest question, I have a hard time motivating myself to follow the news at the moment…
  - cromka 6mo ago
    Fighting Russia and supporting Israel is mostly an EU stance right now, including of van der Leyen. In general, EU countries so far rather appease Israel, with notable exceptions of Spain and Ireland.
senko 6mo ago
As another comment[0] asked: > Hmmm, what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power? If you're like most politicians, you would do what most politicians do - bargain. For example: agree on veto removal but keep farm subsidies for another X years, or unblock the new "common debt" fund (or enshrine "no common debt fund", depending on which way you lean). Member states politicians have made far more far-reaching decisions for far less: let us not forget Cameron promised the Brexit referendum to increase his chances of winning an election - and then, fascinatingly, followed through. As an EU citizen from a small state with little real power in the bloc, I'm all for the replacement of veto with a quorum. I'd not want to see EU deadlocked over any major issue just because any tiny country with the population of a London borough can wield it to settle a score with their neighbour. Ask any Macedonian what they had to go through for the EU carrot. First they were vetoed by Greece because it didn't like the name. Fine, they changed it. Then they were vetoed by France (which previously was fine with this) because whatever. Or ask any Ukrainian what they think of essential monetary aid, approved by (representatives of) a few hundred million Europeans, being held hostage by Putin's chum. Even in less life-or-death cases, there's a lot of really (long-term) damaging horse-trading behind the scenes to wring concessions of everyone because of the veto problem. It's a perversion of democracy. I don't think this will fly, but I wish it did. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47755919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47755919

The EU has a problem with a lack of legitimisation of the whole political construct and other power players know about this weakness. The degree of freedom in political decision is strongly inhibited. This wouldn't solve any problems either, on the contrary. Personally I don't feel like a EU citizen. It is like being a citizen of a bureaucratic monster that serves no specific function. That tries to justify its existence not through being a guardian of common values, but a bureaucracy of not-quite-experts. I genuinely wonder about people that feel patriotic about the EU. I have nothing against them, I just don't want to share the same house. Orban was someone to point the finger to for what feels like decades. To see this result and extract a mission to extend EU powers is delusional in my opinion.

torginus 6mo ago
I think the EU is just a bunch of countries in a trenchcoat. The main reason for this is the lack of mobility between countries. Each country has its own language, and more importantly social security, benefits, taxes, and the properties are much more expensive compared to salaries than pretty much anywhere in the world. So either you're a long term renter with locked in low rates, or own an apt, so you have very little incentive to move. People who do move usually come from a poorer part to a richer part, and once in their lives, or they move to a warmer country like Spain when they retire.
ahartmetz 6mo ago
There could also hardly be a worse representative than von der Leyen. She is the perfect example of an incredibly unpopular and even incapable (she did terribly as the German minister of defense) but cunning career politician who SOMEHOW made it to a top position in the EU.
mhitza 6mo ago
What EU country are you from? For me there where mostly upsides of being in the EU. Free travel, better consumer legislation, more invidual rights and protections, etc.
mfuzzey 6mo ago
There are a lot of upsides to being in the EU. It's so much easier to move aroud, both for short term travel and longer term too. The common currency (at least in most countries) really helps as do things like no roaming charges. If you decide you want to go and look for a job in another country you just do it, no visa hassle or asking permissions. I was born in the UK and moved to France (long before Brexit thank goodness) it would have been much harder without the EU. I certainly consider myself a EU citizen, more than British or French (I now have both nationalities). Of course it's not perfect but getting rid of individual coutry vetoes would help with a lot of things in the wider geopolicital sphere - and has already been done in many domains)
- raxxorraxor 6mo ago
  Moving around easily and not having to show your passport is often an argument for the advantages. In reality this is more or less completely insignificant, even if you do travel a lot. Some bureaucratic barriers changing nationalities aren't relevant in contrast to what the EU brings to the table. Meanwhile, while people can vote for an inhibited parliament, it is far too removed from the average citizen that neither knows the people they are voting for, nor can they probably understand them. VdL would have never been successful if people understood what she was saying or had said in the past. It is a democratic circus and a clear symptom.

nickysielicki 6mo ago

> Orbán, the EU’s most autocratic leader […] lost by a decisive margin in Sunday’s vote, amid the highest turnout in Hungary’s democratic history. What a ridiculous sentence. He’s an autocrat, but he’s out of power after losing a democratic election. Which is it? Words have meaning.

watwut 6mo ago
It was election, but Hungarian democracy is severely lacking and barely a democracy. A miracle happened, because too many people were too pissed at Orban. That does not make the country non autocratic, it means miracle happened and now new guys has all that power.
- redeeman 6mo ago
  haha, a miracle happened, people voted someone out, but its NOT a democracy. why is it so needed to try paint it as not a democracy when it has CLEARLY proven that it is such
  - watwut 6mo ago
    Mostly because I know more about Hungarian system then you. It is was not clearly proven as such. The system is still heavily favoring one party. Just because you can flip who is on top of all stars align and 80% of voters come in mostly does not make it functional democracy worth the name. Orban was able to stay in power so long, because anything less then that would mean he gets all that power again. Opposition media and parties in the country were destroyed long time ago. Judiciary is routinely abused. Simple as that. Yes, it was pro-democracy, anti-Russia, pro-EU vote. That does not mean Hungary changed over time. It means it has one last chance at reform. If it does not reform, there will be no way to flip it in elections the next time. And yes, American conservative fans of Orban know all of that - Rubio, Vance, Rod Dreher, Peterson. They loved and admired the arrangement and want to emulate it.
    - redeeman 6mo ago

watwut 6mo ago

It is actually a good idea.

barbazoo 6mo ago
I see no path where this would be a good idea unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same. If Hungary is a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy then either they have to focus their attention on improving living conditions there so people realize the value of their alliance (if that's the purpose, improving living conditions) or realize that Hungary isn't a good fit for this type of alliance and kick it out. Removing veto power probably makes it more likely that the next Orban pulls them out of the EU entirely which might not be in the interest of the alliance.
- watwut 6mo ago
  First, Hungary is not a "a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy". They are just not fully democratic country anymore, full stop. The system there did not changed, judiciary, media and the rest of the country are as much in the hands of a leader and easy to be abused as yesterday. The person on top of it changed. He did promised reforms, it remains to be seen whether they happen or not. But second, regardless of Hungary, anyone can veto is dysfunctional system. > unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same. Everyone has veto is literally a system where everyone must think the same, else nothing will happen. > Removing veto power probably makes it more likely that the next Orban pulls them out of the EU entirely which might not be in the interest of the alliance. That would be bad for Hungary, but good for the rest of Europe. Hungary presence in EU was damaging to EU for years now.
  - redeeman 6mo ago
    > Everyone has veto is literally a system where everyone must think the same, else nothing will happen. thats not true, it just means that everone must not be extremely opposed to something for it to happen.
    - 6mo ago

Georgelemental 6mo ago

[dead]

solaarphunk 6mo ago

Brussels appears to be extremely tone deaf to the basic needs of ordinary people, and taking further steps in a direction to centralize power is just going to push more people to the far right. For example, the fact that right-wing governments in central and eastern Europe are protecting their borders, represents a very popular perspective, apparently shared by very few in the EU governing body. Consolidating power at a moment when many EU policies are clearly unpopular seems like it will have unintended consequences.

snowpid 6mo ago
" ... apparently shared by very few in the EU governing body." Source? Given Frontex' action I doubt it.
sunshine-o 6mo ago
It is really make or break for the EU "regime". This is because the EU never had a clear goal and so the project cannot be finished if it was to survive. First it was about harmonizing law and standards, then the Euro and stabilizing and rebuilding the eastern Europe. All those things were good ideas and great successes, but now what? This is why they really wanted to absorb Turkey 20 years ago, and now Ukraine, Brussels needs a new project so it can justify it's existence and expansion. So it becomes a devouring mother who keep their 40 years old kids at home and try to find new one to adopt. The EU is also unfortunately a very pre-Internet and pre-globalization project. Just put yourself in the shoes of the previous generations who had to imagine a system to have Germany, Portugal and Greece adopt standards to be able to work efficiently together? This is a very hard problem in 1970 or 1980. Today if Greta from Hamburg want to get in business with Portugal she search on Google, send an email, go on a Zoom meeting with real time translation and can pay with a stablecoin. If she need to figure out some laws in Portugal she can ask ChatGPT. This was science fiction 50 years ago. That is not even necessary, she can go on aliexpress and do business in China instantly. China is not part of the EU but it seems we are very interconnected and do a lot of business with China anyway. And your shipment from China is protected by the Seventh fleet, not the EU. Protecting the borders or raising an army? those are not things a bureaucracy know how to do or can do... it was not designed for this. So yes the EU is trying to find a new frontiers: physical, ideological or digital. This is why in recent year it has been a lot about regulating the Internet, social media, porn, crypto, chat, AI, etc. But regulating a technology when the cat is already out of the bag is really hard so they will have to get China level authoritarian to show some results.

dh2022 6mo ago

Interesting situation. EU is asking countries to give up their right to veto foreign policy decisions. Any country can veto this proposal. Hmmm, what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power?

euroderf 6mo ago
Then you would have the United States Senate.
fifilura 6mo ago
> what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power? Was that a rhetoric question? Of course it is a leap of faith. But the idea is that it will make the union as a whole stronger, and then maybe even giving up your veto right would make it worthwhile.
bigbadfeline 6mo ago
> EU is asking countries to give up their right to veto foreign policy decisions. Any country can veto this proposal. Hopefully it well be vetoed by more than one. There is no realistic alternative to veto in the situation the EU is in. It could be an option later on, they have to be patient, now is the worst time to move towards coercive powers. Especially under such a nonsensical pretext: >> Von der Leyen uses Orbán defeat to push for end of veto in EU foreign policy Orban was defeated, democracy worked, veto power is no longer under the threat of abuse, if it ever was. A lot of other issues could be improved in the EU, do that instead of fixing what's not broken.
- illiac786 6mo ago
  Some think this is one of the major broken thing in the EU, the inability to handle quickly, speak with one voice. Veto right is actually very undemocratic: A minuscule minority overrules the vast majority. but it was the only way to convince countries to form the EU. And to be fair, it’s a way of protecting minorities. > There is no realistic alternative to veto in the situation the EU is in. Many many people disagree on this. There is no alternative to supporting Ukraine as much as possible. Very uncomfortable truth, shitty situation, and unfortunately, delusion/denial is a very common (and very relatable) human reaction to such situations.

iammjm 6mo ago

To all against a priori against this, I encourage you to read up on the history and consequences of "liberum veto"

busterarm 6mo ago
This is very short term thinking. The EU will not survive losing the veto. And it'll happen in under a decade.
- mhitza 6mo ago
  I wouldn't put a date in predictions, but wuthout right to veto they're playing harder into the nationalistic propaganda of "Brussel forces us"
  - busterarm 6mo ago
    https://michalovadek.github.io/eu-veto-tracker/ https://michalovadek.github.io/eu-veto-tracker/. It's not just the nationalistic usual suspects that use their veto power. This rightly points out that many issues that are known will have their veto used don't even get brought up. Removal of the veto will stop this and I expect lightning rod topics and disputes to occur much more frequently. Same with the free-riding comment. Removing the veto will expose some nations "true colors" in ways that most do not anticipate. It's not all sunshine and rainbows of agreement among the EU member states.
    - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
      > many issues that are known will have their veto used don't even get brought up. It's quite disingenuous to blame the veto power for lack of discussion on important issues, if anything it's an argument in favor of the veto, because the only reason to avoid discussion when you lack coercive power is weak arguments... and there's no need to waste time with such nonsense. > Removing the veto will expose some nations "true colors" in ways that most do not anticipate. Another slippery argument - there is absolutely no reason to hide the "true colors" of veto-capable members you disagree with, actually the opposite is true, one will have to come up with more, more convincing and true-color-exposing arguments in order to apply pressure via the electorate of the true colors. > It's not all sunshine and rainbows of agreement among the EU member states. No it's not, there are shady forces who dream about coercion for the worse.

iknownothow 6mo ago

Out of curiosity, can there not be something like a two party or N party veto? i.e. requiring a minimum of two or N parties to work together to veto? The choice between just a single party having a veto power vs no party with veto powers seems a little black and white to me. Happy to be enlightened on the matter.

snowpid 6mo ago
An N party veto is called a quorum. So if you need 75 % of all countries, it is a 7 nation veto.
euroderf 6mo ago
Two would be toxic. Malta and Cyprus, or whatever. Three might be viable.
illiac786 6mo ago
Yes, a 2/3 quorum m quorum in critical topics. Same as a lot of countries do for things like changing the constitution.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

sunshine-o 6mo ago

I remember clearly that 20 years ago when they were trying to pass their constitution they were saying: "do not worry we can transfer all power to the EU because any country could always veto it so it is safe"

illiac786 6mo ago
Yep, only way to get them on board. There wouldn’t be any EU if they hadn’t said this. They can leave though. UK would advise against it, I believe.

cromka 6mo ago

As a Pole, I am torn. It would help fight Russian advances for sure, but it would also mean appeasing Israel. Spain's fierce stance against genocide in Palestine would be nearly impossible in a collective EU foreign policy.

illiac786 6mo ago
I might have missed something: Why is fighting Russia equivalent to supporting Israel? Honest question, I have a hard time motivating myself to follow the news at the moment…
- cromka 6mo ago
  Fighting Russia and supporting Israel is mostly an EU stance right now, including of van der Leyen. In general, EU countries so far rather appease Israel, with notable exceptions of Spain and Ireland.

senko 6mo ago

As another comment[0] asked: > Hmmm, what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power? If you're like most politicians, you would do what most politicians do - bargain. For example: agree on veto removal but keep farm subsidies for another X years, or unblock the new "common debt" fund (or enshrine "no common debt fund", depending on which way you lean). Member states politicians have made far more far-reaching decisions for far less: let us not forget Cameron promised the Brexit referendum to increase his chances of winning an election - and then, fascinatingly, followed through. As an EU citizen from a small state with little real power in the bloc, I'm all for the replacement of veto with a quorum. I'd not want to see EU deadlocked over any major issue just because any tiny country with the population of a London borough can wield it to settle a score with their neighbour. Ask any Macedonian what they had to go through for the EU carrot. First they were vetoed by Greece because it didn't like the name. Fine, they changed it. Then they were vetoed by France (which previously was fine with this) because whatever. Or ask any Ukrainian what they think of essential monetary aid, approved by (representatives of) a few hundred million Europeans, being held hostage by Putin's chum. Even in less life-or-death cases, there's a lot of really (long-term) damaging horse-trading behind the scenes to wring concessions of everyone because of the veto problem. It's a perversion of democracy. I don't think this will fly, but I wish it did. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47755919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47755919